| |
PA2AGA > PACDIG 08.04.00 07:45l 183 Lines 6402 Bytes #-9489 (0) @ EU
BID : PR_2000_78A
Read: DL6KCF GUEST
Subj: PacketRadioDigest 2000/78A
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MRW<DB0ERF<DB0ROF<DB0AIS<DB0NDK<DB0ACH<PI8JOP<PI8ZAA<
PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PI8VNW
Sent: 000402/0236Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:60079 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g24
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : PACDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA32133 ; Sun, 02 Apr 00 01:59:50 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.70/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00000152 ; Sat, 01 Apr 2000 15:33:46 MET
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 00 15:18:04 MET
Message-Id: <pr_2000_78A>
From: pa2aga
To: pr_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: PacketRadioDigest 2000/78A
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
Packet-Radio Digest Fri, 31 Mar 2000 Volume 2000 : Issue 78
Today's Topics:
AGW+Winpack+UIView (2 msgs)
Best speed without line-of-sight? (5 msgs)
info required on PK-232mbx with 7.19 software (2 msgs)
Type of radio?
What is a good Packet Modem?
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <Packet-Radio@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <Packet-Radio-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
Archives of past issues of the Packet-Radio Digest are available
(by FTP only) from ftp.UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/packet-radio".
We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there.
Loop-Detect: Packet-Radio:2000/78
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 22:42:30 +0100
From: "paul@g7uib" <paul@g7uib.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: AGW+Winpack+UIView
Can I use AGW because I use a baycom type modem but use winpack as a front
end because I dont like AGW terminal program. Also will UI view work with it
all???
--
paul@g7uib.freeserve.co.uk
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:32:44 +0200
From: "John" <jopi21@hotmail.com>
Subject: AGW+Winpack+UIView
Yes, no problem.
You might just run the ´Packet Engine´ as usual, and then choose the
AGW-driver in the Winpack comm-section. Your Winpack should then behave
quite normal.
Several programs like TST and others are able to use the Packet Engine
nowadays.
You could also use the SER12 flexnet-driver, and then choose TFEMU in
Winpack - should do quite as well...
John
paul@g7uib wrote in <8c0hr5$31p$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>Can I use AGW because I use a baycom type modem but use winpack as a front
>end because I dont like AGW terminal program. Also will UI view work with
it
>all???
>--
>paul@g7uib.freeserve.co.uk
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:09:18 -0600
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Best speed without line-of-sight?
Hank Oredson <horedson@att.net> wrote in message
news:ASPD4.17$Ju2.1584@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net> wrote in message
> news:8bo74601vif@enews2.newsguy.com...
> > >
> > > So I'll repeat for those who are interested in experimenting
> > > with ham radio: it is possible to pass internet content across
> > > ham radio links without violating the terms of one's license,
> > > even here in the US. You just have to be careful of what you do.
> > >
> >
> > LOL! I like that one! ;-)
>
> Glad you enjoyed it.
>
> Some of us prefer to get on with doing interesting things,
> rather than trying to figure out reasons they can't be done.
>
Well, we're all entitled to our opinions... And we all must make our own
decisions as to which source of information is most relevant to a particular
issue.
When I talked to the folks at the FCC's enforcement division, I was told
that they would be most interested in ANY transmission of advertising
material transported over a digital Ham link. My specific question was about
the "juno.com" ads stuck on the end of E-mails that are ported over to the
Ham network. I was told that ANY advertisement transmitted over the Ham
bands was illegal as hell. Period.
For more information on these matters, check out the FCC PART97 regs that
apply to Amateur Radio.
If you prefer to believe that the ads on web sites somehow do not apply,
well, it's your Ham ticket, and you have the right to jeopardize it in any
way that you feel is necessary.
Go ahead and browse the web over your ham links, Hank. If you insist on
operating illegally long enough, I'm sure the problem will take care of
itself.
When I take a long drive across Texas to visit friends and relatives, a lot
of times I think it would be nice if I could drive at 85 or 90 MPH over the
long, straight stretches that don't carry much traffic. I really wish I
could go a bit faster.
But I satisfy myself with sticking with the posted limit and as a result, I
haven't had to explain to the authorities why I thought the law applies to
everyone else but me.
I understand that you WISH it was "OK" to ignore the PART97 regs, or perhaps
interpret them for yourself, but...
Like my Grandmother used to say, "Wish in one hand, and crap in the other...
See which one fills up the fastest!"
I trust your opinions and appreciate your expertise in many matters
pertaining to Packet Radio, Hank, but on this one I'll have to trust the
FCC's opinion over yours.
Sorry, but that's how it is. The law is the law.
--
73 DE Charles Brabham, N5PVL
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 20:07:13 GMT
From: "Hank Oredson" <horedson@att.net>
Subject: Best speed without line-of-sight?
"Aaron Baugher" <abaugher@adams.net> wrote in message
news:m2g0t81x94.fsf@haruchai.adams.net...
> Good grief; I didn't realize I was going to start a holy
> war. I've got no intentions of doing anything illegal, so
> if there are any FCC goons headed to my house with tear gas,
> please tell them to stand down.
>
> Now that I'm aware of the legal issues and have done more
> research on the technology, I'll ask a completely different
> question:
>
> A friend and I like to play network games, but since I moved
> out into a rural area where I can't get anything faster than
> analog modem access, we're basically out of commission.
> We're 50 miles apart. I've been looking at the WA4DSY 56K
> modem from PacComm. Down East Microwave sells a 56K MSK
> Modem Transceiver that is designed to work with this modem.
> It looks like I might also need a PC card like the PacComm
> PackeTwin in my computer. My friend, of course, would need
To be continued in digest: pr_2000_78B
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
